By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Prediction: PS5 is going to cost 599$ and it will be ok.

 

How much will the PS5 cost ?

More than 599$ 2 2.78%
 
599$ 17 23.61%
 
499$ 49 68.06%
 
399$ 2 2.78%
 
Less than 399$ 2 2.78%
 
Total:72

To be honest it will be deadly if they charge 599 and then series x undercuts by 100 dollars. Why pay more for a lower spec machine.



Around the Network

Japan will be crying.



Pocky Lover Boy! 

COKTOE said:
shikamaru317 said:

$20 I think. It's alot cheaper than buying a whole new controller when your battery life starts to get bad after a couple of years, so I actually like that Xbox controllers have replaceable batteries. But I do wish they bundled a rechargeable battery with the console and separate controllers. 

I think you're maybe underselling the life-span of these batteries. Taken at it's most literal, a couple means 2, and after 14 years of using rechargeable controllers and 18 years for portable systems, I have never had a single one become noticeably compromised in 2 years. Having said that, the controllers usually need to be replaced after roughly 4 years for other reasons, so that is my battery ceiling, but again, the battery never showed signs of needing replacement after heavy use. That's across 2 full gens with no hint of battery degradation. I'll even toss in my grand champion of battery life, my launch Vita. I abandoned it in Dec 2018. Almost 7 years, and roughly 4-5 thousand hours, it still held a charge almost perfectly. The DS and DS Lite didn't get quite as much time, but they still never faltered. Furthermore to this, LI batteries are fairly easily replaceable.

And on a personal note. F*** "replaceable batteries".

The only issue I had with rechargeable batteries are the battery packs for 360 and Wii controllers that wouldn't charge anymore after 5+ years. All the build in stuff has outlasted the controllers lifespan. My psp battery bloated and burst out of the case after not using it for a decade. It still works on power, battery is too big to fit and likely dead. But you can easily replace it.

My wife's iPod recently died, battery won't charge anymore, it made it 15 years.



SvennoJ said:
COKTOE said:

I think you're maybe underselling the life-span of these batteries. Taken at it's most literal, a couple means 2, and after 14 years of using rechargeable controllers and 18 years for portable systems, I have never had a single one become noticeably compromised in 2 years. Having said that, the controllers usually need to be replaced after roughly 4 years for other reasons, so that is my battery ceiling, but again, the battery never showed signs of needing replacement after heavy use. That's across 2 full gens with no hint of battery degradation. I'll even toss in my grand champion of battery life, my launch Vita. I abandoned it in Dec 2018. Almost 7 years, and roughly 4-5 thousand hours, it still held a charge almost perfectly. The DS and DS Lite didn't get quite as much time, but they still never faltered. Furthermore to this, LI batteries are fairly easily replaceable.

And on a personal note. F*** "replaceable batteries".

The only issue I had with rechargeable batteries are the battery packs for 360 and Wii controllers that wouldn't charge anymore after 5+ years. All the build in stuff has outlasted the controllers lifespan. My psp battery bloated and burst out of the case after not using it for a decade. It still works on power, battery is too big to fit and likely dead. But you can easily replace it.

My wife's iPod recently died, battery won't charge anymore, it made it 15 years.

Jesus Christ, I should charge my Vitas. A friend recently told me to do as much, because according to him ( and he's a smart guy I trust implicitly ), not charging LI batteries for extended periods of time accelerates degradation. I sure as hell don't need any burst-level events. 



- "If you have the heart of a true winner, you can always get more pissed off than some other asshole."

aikohualda said:
$600 today is 471 in 2006 (ps3 release)
so value is much cheaper when ps3 was released in 2006 (Xbox stole a lot of PS market esp early years).... i think it is doable..... but still would hurt if xbox price theirs at 499

While I always understand this sort of sentiment, I must admit that I don't really get how that changes anything in the here and now.

As far as I am concerned, $599 was too much for a console in 2006. And it's too much for a console now.

If the PS5 is $599 then there is no way I am buying one until a price cut or sale. Of course I get that many others are willing to pay that price and that is fine. 



Around the Network

With Jim Ryan making it super clear they are focusing on value, to me this means the physical edition definitely won't be $399 unless he's trying to keep that a huge surprise. Which I can only then logically assume $499 or $549 at the absolute most, considering these are the only two SKU's as far as we know. As for the digital edition, it's really tough to say depending on whether SNY wants to be greedy, or wants to look generous so they can lock down as many players to their online ecosystem and store as possible. Would SNY just double the SSD on the digital edition and charge $499 for both and consider that a value strategy?

$549 for the physical and $499 for the digital, worst case scenario. If they hit $599 again it's going to get some backlash, and they know what that did on a small social scale with PS3, and a much bigger social scale with XB1. The only way I see them getting away with $599, would be if XBSX is also $599 and no Lockhart. Then SNY can get away with it for the most part, even though their sales will still suffer early on.

I also think the PS5 aesthetic design is going to appeal way more so to kids than to adults, especially with the revealed two tone that sounds to be the only launch color. $599 for little Billy is going to be a much tougher sell than to a young adult or grown up who's interested for themselves. A PS4 or Pro will be much, much cheaper.



COKTOE said:
shikamaru317 said:

$20 I think. It's alot cheaper than buying a whole new controller when your battery life starts to get bad after a couple of years, so I actually like that Xbox controllers have replaceable batteries. But I do wish they bundled a rechargeable battery with the console and separate controllers. 

I think you're maybe underselling the life-span of these batteries. Taken at it's most literal, a couple means 2, and after 14 years of using rechargeable controllers and 18 years for portable systems, I have never had a single one become noticeably compromised in 2 years. Having said that, the controllers usually need to be replaced after roughly 4 years for other reasons, so that is roughly, my battery ceiling for controllers. But again, the battery never showed signs of needing replacement after heavy use. That's across 2 full gens with no hint of battery degradation. I'll even toss in my grand champion of battery life, my launch Vita. I abandoned it in Dec 2018. Almost 7 years, and roughly 4-5 thousand hours, it still held a charge almost perfectly. The DS and DS Lite didn't get quite as much time, but they still never faltered. Furthermore to this, LI batteries are fairly easily replaceable.

And on a personal note. F*** "replaceable batteries". That's some 80's sh**.

Personally my PS4 Pro controller has lost nearly half of it’s battery life since Holiday 2016 when I bought it.



DonFerrari said:
Bristow9091 said:

PS3 launched at $599 and crossed 50m, lol

At a very big cost and several corrections. And you do understand the point =p

May it launch at 599? Sure Sony can make mistakes, but the reasoning of OP and people agreeing is very off.

PS3 had the advantage of BD and being more powerful, plus it was loosing 200 per unit so it was as low as possible. With the PS5 BOM estimative 450, it would make zero sense to launch it at 599 and leave MS to smack them on price while also more powerful and with essentially the same features.

Honestly I missed the article about the PS5 BOM, if that's accurate maybe we could be looking more at $499 for the digital only edition and $549 for the phisical version. 

Though the BOM doesn't consider production, delivery and intermediation costs, for $499 they would still be taking a loss, maybe even for 549$ they would barely brake even. 

About PS3, the BD wasn't much of an advantage...console players didn't really care about it. Also, as mentioned before PS3 actually started in a far worse position, launching 1 year late with a weak lineup while the X360 already had an impressive library.

But most importantly, Sony at the time didn't have the brand reputation it has today in terms of 1st party content. 1st party reputation is their most important differentiation factor VS the XB. It's true that MS has invested a lot opening new studios... but it in any case it will take them some time to build that kind of reputation. 

Last edited by freebs2 - on 13 June 2020

Bonzinga said:
Why would the market be okay with $599?

Because of the limited production.



Bonzinga said:
Why would the market be okay with $599?

It's a simplistic way to say there would be enough demand @599$ to guarantee a decent launch.

There is an increasing demand for high-end hardware for gaming, if you a have doubts about it just look at Nvidia's results. Their consumer GPU segment is growing significantly in the last few years despite their raise in GPU prices. 

https://dashboards.trefis.com/no-login-required/5NF90qn6/Nvidia-Revenue-How-Does-Nvidia-Make-Money-?fromforbesandarticle=trefis200225

Of course, must potential customers won't be willing to spend that much. That's why price cuts and bundling would take place afterwards.